Public service pay cut?

But hey, I'm not still working at half 5 on a Bank Holiday configuring SCCM for next week.
And my nurse wife is running late, as always, leaving the hospital.

Public sector's been sitting on arse all through the pandemic, apparently

salonfire

Deleted User wrote: »

But hey, I'm not still working at half 5 on a Bank Holiday configuring SCCM for next week.
And my nurse wife isn't running late, as always, leaving the hospital.

Public sector's been sitting on arse all through the pandemic, apparently

Plenty of others would fill your boots if you hadn't the job. Don't flatter yourself.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

Plenty of others would fill your boots if you hadn't the job. Don't flatter yourself.

Yeah; I went back to college, got another level 8 qualification, spent my time as a low paid service desk and contractor Sys Admin.


I'll take credit for my hard work all day, pal.

Vizzy

salonfire wrote: »

Plenty of others would fill your boots if you hadn't the job. Don't flatter yourself.

Someone like yourself perhaps ?

Vizzy

Vizzy wrote: »

Someone like yourself perhaps ?

They are open competitions after all.

salonfire

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They are open competitions after all.

Exactly. And if it wasn't you, they'd just move to next in line in the panel.

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

Exactly. And if it wasn't you, they'd just move to next in line in the panel.

So why haven't you applied?

And it was me, I was that good.



So you guys complain that we don't work hard enough and are salty when shown we do...
And I don't get paid nearly as well as I did in private sector (or get healthcare and benefits) so yeah I trade that vs the stability and a pension that's (frankly) not any better than I had

fliball123

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is your memory that bad that you don't remember saying:

"This is simple the public sector employees get the benefit of the pensions therefore they should pay a much larger proportion of the expense"

If that's your principled position, then you would also be in favour of sick people, who get the benefit of the hospitals, paying a larger proportion of the expense of running hospitals?

Sick people do pay a larger proportion as I said on top of tax which everyone pays in some shape or form, a person who is sick will have a doctors bill, hospital bill and the expense of medicines purchased from the pharmacy on top so they do pay a larger proportion for the running of our healthcare system.

AndrewJRenko

fliball123 wrote: »

Sick people do pay a larger proportion as I said on top of tax which everyone pays in some shape or form, a person who is sick will have a doctors bill, hospital bill and the expense of medicines purchased from the pharmacy on top so they do pay a larger proportional for the running of our healthcare system.

Doctor's bill isn't tax, it's going into your GPs pocket. Prescription costs isn't tax, it is going into your pharmacist's pocket. Hospital bill is minimal, max of €800 a year, which is just a drop in the ocean when it comes to medical costs.

If you really believe your principle of those who benefit must pay a larger share of the costs, then you're going to have to start hitting up sick people.

And what about the parents of school children? The costs of creches would give you some indication of the real costs of running schools, so given your principle, you're going to start hitting up every parent of school going kids for much, much more tax now. The student may or may not pay tax in the future, they could emigrate, they could get sick or disabled, they could die - so much uncertainty, so with your important principle, parents are going to have to pay much more tax.

And should we start on farmers - all those grants they get, all those Teagasc services they avail of, they're going to have to start paying a larger share of those costs because they're the ones who benefit from it, based on your important principle, right?

fliball123

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Doctor's bill isn't tax, it's going into your GPs pocket. Prescription costs isn't tax, it is going into your pharmacist's pocket. Hospital bill is minimal, max of €800 a year, which is just a drop in the ocean when it comes to medical costs.

If you really believe your principle of those who benefit must pay a larger share of the costs, then you're going to have to start hitting up sick people.

And what about the parents of school children? The costs of creches would give you some indication of the real costs of running schools, so given your principle, you're going to start hitting up every parent of school going kids for much, much more tax now. The student may or may not pay tax in the future, they could emigrate, they could get sick or disabled, they could die - so much uncertainty, so with your important principle, parents are going to have to pay much more tax.

And should we start on farmers - all those grants they get, all those Teagasc services they avail of, they're going to have to start paying a larger share of those costs because they're the ones who benefit from it, based on your important principle, right?

Yet the fact is people who use our supposed services do actually pay more. I didnt just say in tax I said the amount they pay.

Some parents pay for private school or they can settle for the what the state offer. How much more does it cost parents for books, uniforms, tracksuits etc. Its costs more for a parent to send a kid to school then someone who does not have a kid in school. You said the person who benefits from the service should pay more and in this case they do it may not be always in the form of taxation.

I agree with you with regards to people who emigrate after finishing school they will have been provided a service that we cant get our money back on. Is there anyway to get something back before they go like a year of national service which happens in other countries?

With the HSE you can use their system and pay 800 in a year and you will be put on the never ending waiting list and will probably die before you get what ever you needed done.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-one-million-could-be-on-hospital-waiting-lists-by-year-end-consultants-warn-1.4498974

How many people pay for private health care in this country even do we have supposed free health care???

Back in 2018 nearly half the population

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0808/1067614-2-2-million-irish-people-have-private-health-insurance/

So on on top of not wanting to left on the never never waiting list people can elect to pay up to 800 a year which is still more than someone who does not have to engage with the HSE. So once again it shows that someone using our HSE pays more than someone who does not use.

Dont start with the farmers they are literally milking the system boom boom

AndrewJRenko

fliball123 wrote: »

Yet the fact is people who use our supposed services do actually pay more. I didnt just say in tax I said the amount they pay.

Some parents pay for private school or they can settle for the what the state offer. How much more does it cost parents for books, uniforms, tracksuits etc. Its costs more for a parent to send a kid to school then someone who does not have a kid in school. You said the person who benefits from the service should pay more and in this case they do it may not be always in the form of taxation.

I agree with you with regards to people who emigrate after finishing school they will have been provided a service that we cant get our money back on. Is there anyway to get something back before they go like a year of national service which happens in other countries?

With the HSE you can use their system and pay 800 in a year and you will be put on the never ending waiting list and will probably die before you get what ever you needed done.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/almost-one-million-could-be-on-hospital-waiting-lists-by-year-end-consultants-warn-1.4498974

How many people pay for private health care in this country even do we have supposed free health care???

Back in 2018 nearly half the population

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2019/0808/1067614-2-2-million-irish-people-have-private-health-insurance/

So on on top of not wanting to left on the never never waiting list people can elect to pay up to 800 a year which is still more than someone who does not have to engage with the HSE. So once again it shows that someone using our HSE pays more than someone who does not use.

Dont start with the farmers they are literally milking the system boom boom

Wait till you hear about all the extra costs that public servants have to cover!

They have to pay rent and mortgages, they have to pay for buses and trains and bikes, they have to buy lunches and buy suits and pay for laundry.

Loads of extra costs, so if 'paying extra costs' is a loophole in your 'those who benefit have to pay most' principle, that definitely applies to public servants.

Seems like lots of loopholes in your policy...

Geuze

fliball123 wrote: »

Whats the lump sum on top of this Geuze?

1.5x final salary

SouthWesterly

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It is a bit annoying that you don't get a state pension.

Take that 13k (?) out of your public sector pension. Add up your PRSI contributions and pay deductions and it's not that great a pension.



My Guinness pension would have hammered the public as I would also get state pension

Glad to see the light has finally gone on somewhere

SouthWesterly

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Glad to see the light has finally gone on somewhere

I'm comparing my own PS pension Vs my own Guinness pension though

Treppen

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Has "benchmarking" been mentioned at all?

I don't know.. has it?

Any event, the t&c of employment are way worse then when after benchmarking came in ... And taken away.

So any point on benchmarking is a bit pointless.

Treppen

salonfire wrote: »

Exactly. And if it wasn't you, they'd just move to next in line in the panel.

How did your job selection process work?

100 applicants, first choice says no then they just stop and go home??

Treppen

Pogue eile wrote: »

You clearly didn't read the links if you are talking about net contributors and recovery funds that need to be paid back - educate yourself before you get up on that high horse, it a long way down.

Enjoy your misery, I'm off to spend my outrageously generous pension on coke and hookers :D:D

You see, even on a retired public sector pension we still support the private sector. But those private sector workers can still Dodge their tax.

kennethsmyth

Bottom line is in any business or public service if the major cost is payroll and cost saving have to be made you have two choices.

Redundancy or pay cuts.

If redundancy it should be statutory like all others.

If statutory is not enough then change the statutory values.

Make your choice.

AndrewJRenko

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Bottom line is in any business or public service if the major cost is payroll and cost saving have to be made you have two choices.

Redundancy or pay cuts.

If redundancy it should be statutory like all others.

If statutory is not enough then change the statutory values.

Make your choice.

Public service isn't a business. It is public service.

Payroll is about 20%-25% of overall costs, and is already suffering from the cuts imposed last time round.

Don't come back a second time until you've cut the other 75%.

Dav010

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Public service isn't a business. It is public service.

Payroll is about 20%-25% of overall costs, and is already suffering from the cuts imposed last time round.

Don't come back a second time until you've cut the other 75%.

Is it not closer to 33%? Which when you consider what that amounts to, €18.7 billion, it is an extraordinary number.

kennethsmyth

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Public service isn't a business. It is public service.

Payroll is about 20%-25% of overall costs, and is already suffering from the cuts imposed last time round.

Don't come back a second time until you've cut the other 75%.

Public service exists to serve citizens not your payroll

Vizzy

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Public service exists to serve citizens not your payroll

And here was me thinking that slavery was abolished years ago

kennethsmyth

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Bottom line is in any business or public service if the major cost is payroll and cost saving have to be made you have two choices.

Redundancy or pay cuts.

If redundancy it should be statutory like all others.

If statutory is not enough then change the statutory values.

Make your choice.

I received 8 weeks plus statutory, in private sector. Your point?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I received 8 weeks plus statutory, in private sector. Your point?

IBM offered their staff 5 to 8 weeks for every year of service.

Two guys that I used to work with there were made redundant three years ago after 20 years service, so two years full salary as redundancy.
They were rehired by IBM two months ago with better salary and conditions.

AndrewJRenko

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Public service exists to serve citizens not your payroll

That's correct, it does exist to serve citizens. And the staff involved in providing that service deserve a decent salary and pension.

Dav010 wrote: »

Is it not closer to 33%? Which when you consider what that amounts to, €18.7 billion, it is an extraordinary number.

Total expenditure is about €90 billion this year.
https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

What's extraordinary about spending on payroll in highly labour intensive and knowledge intensive public services?

Dav010

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's correct, it does exist to serve citizens. And the staff involved in providing that service deserve a decent salary and pension.



Total expenditure is about €90 billion this year.
https://whereyourmoneygoes.gov.ie/en/

What's extraordinary about spending on payroll in highly labour intensive and knowledge intensive public services?

If you are going to use this year’s unprecedented expenditure associated with Covid, no doubt your requirement for the other 75% to be cut will be easily satisfied once all those Covid related payments are reduced as the country returns to something closer to normality.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Don't come back a second time until you've cut the other 75%.

My 33% was based on this:

https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/2b39fc-public-service-pay-policy/

It becomes even less affordable if you include the €90b figure you posted.

fliball123

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Wait till you hear about all the extra costs that public servants have to cover!

They have to pay rent and mortgages, they have to pay for buses and trains and bikes, they have to buy lunches and buy suits and pay for laundry.

Loads of extra costs, so if 'paying extra costs' is a loophole in your 'those who benefit have to pay most' principle, that definitely applies to public servants.

Seems like lots of loopholes in your policy...

I believe we are all jumping same hurdles and running the same race when it comes to costs of having to go to work, mortgages and rent. I tell you one thing if you go to a bank with Public sector job the bank will see you as a safer bet than those in the private sector or self employed. So I don't really understand your argument here the costs you outline are there for all sectors.

JimmyVik

fliball123 wrote: »

I believe we are all jumping same hurdles and running the same race when it comes to costs of having to go to work, mortgages and rent. I tell you one thing if you go to a bank with Public sector job the bank will see you as a safer bet than those in the private sector or self employed. So I don't really understand your argument here the costs you outline are there for all sectors.

Im private sector and the bank are throwing money at me.
The seem to like that I have come to like my substantial bonus every year.
Plus the commuter ticket that they pay for for me. I never thought a bank would be interested in knowing about this.

Dont know if I could give that kind of stuff up to go to the public sector.

fliball123

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Public service isn't a business. It is public service.

Payroll is about 20%-25% of overall costs, and is already suffering from the cuts imposed last time round.

Don't come back a second time until you've cut the other 75%.

In 2019 ps pay was estimated to be 31.5% according the our government or 18.7 Billion

http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2020/Documents/Budget/Public%20Service%20Employment%20and%20Expenditure%20Modelling%20(B).pdf

Then of course we have the liability for Public sector pensions

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/q-a-what-is-the-story-with-the-cost-of-public-sector-pensions-1.4438799

This is also before 3 years of increments and a pay rise. We also have the added bonus of any pay rise given to existing employees are also extended to now retired public servants

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/future-pay-hikes-passed-on-to-retired-public-servants-driving-surge-in-state-s-pension-cost-1.4438426?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Ffuture-pay-hikes-passed-on-to-retired-public-servants-driving-surge-in-state-s-pension-cost-1.4438426

So there is a a lot more than 25% being used to pay public sector pay and pensions.

fliball123

DubInMeath wrote: »

IBM offered their staff 5 to 8 weeks for every year of service.

Two guys that I used to work with there were made redundant three years ago after 20 years service, so two years full salary as redundancy.
They were rehired by IBM two months ago with better salary and conditions.

Are IBM 240 Billion in debt and borrowing 17 Billion this year (or 3 years ago) to keep the lights on? See how this plays out in the private sector when the company is this badly off financially.